McConnell's 'Plan B' Is a Humiliating Abdication of Legislative Responsibility

· Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Only in Washington, D.C., would Mitch McConnell's Rube Goldbergian plan to capitulate on the national debt limit without admitting it be taken seriously. The Senate minority leader's "Plan B" is Exhibit A in the case against Congress, which dodges responsibility with the alacrity of a roach dodging a shoe. Like the congressional response to Barack Obama's unauthorized intervention in Libya's civil war, which has elicited disapproving noises but no decisive action one way or the other, McConnell's solution debases the legislative branch by letting the president do what he wants without officially endorsing it.

The problem, from McConnell's perspective, is that so many of his fellow Republicans insisted they would not vote to raise the debt limit, currently $14.3 trillion (nearly the size of the entire economy), without corresponding spending cuts. With Obama demanding tax hikes, which Republicans have sworn to oppose, they realized they were losing a game of chicken in which onrushing headlights were replaced by a fast-approaching deadline of Aug. 2, when federal borrowing is expected to hit the limit.

McConnell's supposedly face-saving method of chickening out is to disguise one swerve with another: Instead of approving additional borrowing, Congress passes a bill that authorizes the president to initiate a series of three increases in the debt limit. Congress can still vote against each round of new borrowing, but Obama can veto those resolutions of disapproval, meaning a two-thirds majority of each house is required to make them stick. In effect, Plan B allows a minority to approve an increase in the debt limit that would otherwise require a majority.

The idea is that Republicans, who hold 240 out of 435 seats in the House and 47 out of 100 seats in the Senate, can avoid not only the blame for risking default but also the blame for raising the debt limit without commensurate spending cuts. Pretty clever, huh?

A little too clever. McConnell's scheme seems like a complicated way of fooling no one, since Republicans still would have to vote for the overall plan, a vote that would even include an initial, just-in-case authorization for $100 billion in new borrowing. Disclaiming responsibility for setting this process into motion would be like turning the crank in Mouse Trap, then feigning surprise when a cage drops on the little plastic rodent.

McConnell and his Democratic co-conspirator, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have baited the trap with promises of yet another fiscal commission. Didn't we just have one of those, with 18 members appointed jointly by Congress and the president? After much sober discussion and serious debate, it delivered its report last December, directly into the national memory hole.

This new commission will be totally different. According to The Hill, it will be "a special bipartisan committee" with only six members, all of them drawn from Congress. If four of them can agree on a package of spending cuts, Congress will have to vote it up or down, without amendment. This time for sure!

You may be thinking: Doesn't Congress already have "special bipartisan committees" that deal with spending? You may also be thinking: If a majority of Congress can agree on a package of spending cuts, why hasn't it already done that?

A balanced budget amendment, favored by many fiscal conservatives, likewise reeks of failure. If Congress can't muster a simple majority to balance the budget, how likely is it to muster a supermajority that (assuming at least 38 state legislatures eventually agree) forces it to balance the budget? The amendment sounds to me like a desperate whine: "Stop us before we spend again!"

Is it any wonder that the public has such a low opinion of Congress? According to a recent CBS News poll, only 31 percent of Americans approve of the way Democrats have handled the budget negotiations, while the approval rating for Republicans is just 21 percent. By continuing to abdicate their legislative responsibilities, both parties seem determined to see how low they can go.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

Howard Last

Why would anyone be surprised at what McConnell is trying to do? If McConnell's picture was in the dictionary the caption would say "RINO". Remember in the 2010 Kentucky Republican Senate Primary McConnell backed the liberal democrat (isn't that a redundancy) turned RINO running against Rand Paul. What else is new, the Republicans always snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. And they never blow an opportunity to blow and opportunity.

Posted July 20, 2011 at 11:05:27 AM


SamF

Amen to that Howard.

And Mr. Sullum, if we don't fight for a real deal (ie Cut, Cap and Balance), then why even bother? McConnell's plan B, the Gang of 6, or whatever other last minute plan that comes along that garners support from the Republicans basically negates the real deal. That is just demonstrating that we weren't serious in the first place, that it was just a symbolic vote (which I hope and pray it wasn't). To me that is the same as the chest puffing "surge in Againistan" followed by the statement that we will be leaving soon anyway. You don't have to take us seriously, we have a fall-back plan that we're sure you will agree with.

Thanks, but no thanks!

Posted July 20, 2011 at 3:35:30 PM


SamF

Amen to that Howard.

And Mr. Sullum, if we don't fight for a real deal (ie Cut, Cap and Balance), then why even bother? McConnell's plan B, the Gang of 6, or whatever other last minute plan that comes along that garners support from the Republicans basically negates the real deal. That is just demonstrating that we weren't serious in the first place, that it was just a symbolic vote (which I hope and pray it wasn't). To me that is the same as the chest puffing "surge in Againistan" followed by the statement that we will be leaving soon anyway. You don't have to take us seriously, we have a fall-back plan that we're sure you will agree with.

Thanks, but no thanks!

Posted July 20, 2011 at 4:28:58 PM


XCpt

Anyone that thinks a Balanced Budget Amendment would curtail government spending is a fool.

If Congress would pass such a bill it would only provide them the Constitutional authority to INCREASE taxes by whatever amount they needed to balance the budget.

Enforcement of the Constituional limitations on their authority to spend public funds will be the only way to keep them under control.

Posted July 20, 2011 at 5:39:46 PM


Howard Last

XCpt - you got it right. The crooks and/or mental midgets in Washington don't follow the Constitution now, why will they follow and additional amendment?

Posted July 20, 2011 at 7:09:25 PM


Mr.Bones.

mitch mc weasel strikes again.Our dum-publican butt boy has proven once again that he is too smart by half.This charade is tracking just like the one a few months ago.We're going to cut a 100 billion err! 60 billion.ahh!30 billion. What we really meant was will cut at least 500 million.ummm.250 million and not a dime less.Well we promise will do better next time.Honest!Cross our heart and hope to die,stick a needle in our eye.I've got a whole box of needles.And i'm willing to sell them real cheap.So make me an offer I can't refuse.Semper Paratus.

Posted July 20, 2011 at 11:30:08 PM


RyDaddy

"If Congress would pass such a bill it would only provide them the Constitutional authority to INCREASE taxes by whatever amount they needed to balance the budget."

But in Year2, when the tax increase proves to not bring in anywhere near the "revenue projections", they would be starting with that hole as well, and a history of what a tax increase REALLY brings in for revenue (nothing).

Posted July 22, 2011 at 2:24:32 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund